NAGAR NIGAM, RAIPUR Vs. BISRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was prosecuted under Sec. 7(i) read with Sec. 16( 1 -A)( 1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. After trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted h;m. It is this acquittal which is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The respondent was having some milk with him on 19-10-75 when the Food Inspector, Shri K.R. Baghel (P.W. 1), approached him and purchased a small quantity out of it for the purpose of analysis. The receipt showing this sale of milk by the respondent to the Food Inspector is Ex. P/I. The milk on purchase was sealed in three bottles and after observing due formalities, report of Public Analyst was obtained. It is exhibited as Ex. P/5 in the record of the lower court. According to this report, the milk did not conform to the prescribed standard and was thus adulterated. At the stage of trial, besides examining the Food Inspector as P.W. two more witnesses were examined to prove the sale of the milk. These witnesses did not support the prosecution. The defence, however, was that the milk was being taken to the respondent's sister-in-law in compliance with an earlier request made by her and was for domestic purposes. It was not sale. It was also stated that the respondent never engaged himself in the activity of sale of milk. The respondent supported his standby examining witnesses.

(3.) The learned Magistrate, who tried the case, found that it could not be shown by the prosecution that the respondent was carrying milk for sale although it has found that viz., Ex. P/1, The Food Inspector purchased small quantity of milk from the respondent and that it was adulterated. On these findings, the respondent has been acquitted.